originally posted by: Bedlam
Ay! You chuck something intentionally at the Secretary of State with bad intent, and it's not going to go well.

She wasn't Secretary of State at the time. Just an average citizen. But...one of the 1% most of you Hillary lovers seem to hate. But not her. God
no. I mean she is...well...Hillary. That should mean something right? Um....right?

Exactly. And any former first lady would be afforded the same protection for life and any person perpetrating a violent act against such would be
federally charged no matter what your personal opinion of that person is. The dumb ass should have thought of this before she threw her orange is the
new black shoe at Clinton.

Well, can't they just slap the shoe thrower with a restraining order and have her tracked if that's what it takes? Seriously... no one was hurt,
Hillarity had a good laugh and made a joke out of it and received a good applause. Why the big fuss throwing someone in jail? Clearly this case is
more than the protection of the former first lady?

Let's say you are now throwing your shoe in the direction of Hitlery with the real intent to hit her. Ok, you've been drinking and miss her by a few
[hundred] miles. Should you be arrested and face a jail term too?

originally posted by: Bellor
Lol lucky that crazy lady is not in North Korea, she would have pretty much just gotten herself executed and thrown in a ditch without trial.

Actually, lucky for North Koreans the "lady" (and I'm using the term loosely) is not there. She will have them executed, thrown in a ditch without a
trial and scream "What difference do you all make!!?"

originally posted by: DJW001
I'm picking up a vibe that some people on this thread have a dislike of Hillary? Could someone articulate specific reasons why?

Or the fact that she's everything everyone around here despises, but a huge portion of the libs have some sort of love affair with her. But, by all
means, vote for her, we need more of the same.(eye roll)

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- A Phoenix woman accused of throwing a shoe at Hillary Rodham Clinton during a speech in Las Vegas remains in federal custody
after pleading not guilty to two criminal charges.

Alison Ernst, 36, entered the pleas to misdemeanor counts of trespassing and violence against a person during her arraignment late Wednesday in U.S.
District Court in Las Vegas.

I guess I'm missing the issue here. People are held for arraignment in large numbers for a bit of everything, every day of the week in this nation.
This one is held over, and it's political or personal? Why would we assume that on a common process?

I think the thing that is most worrying is how, around the nation, following laws at all is coming to be subjective and a matter of opinion or
justification in breaking them. She broke a couple.. Good. It shows she had conviction in her belief. Now maintain it to fight the charges and take
the lumps given, if found guilty.

Protest with civil disobedience (altho the 2nd charge is a bit beyond that) is empty if it's always expected or demanded to come free, IMO. There is
a cost sometimes.

In other words, no, no-one can actually articulate an an objection to Hillary Clinton.

You are absolutely right, buddy. Nada. No objection at all. Everyone here loves her to death. That was the reason I suggested you changed your
viberometer from the one you were having ...manufactured by CAVE Inc., I assume? Move along now...

I think the thing that is most worrying is how, around the nation, following laws at all is coming to be subjective and a matter of opinion or
justification in breaking them. She broke a couple.. Good. It shows she had conviction in her belief. Now maintain it to fight the charges and take
the lumps given, if found guilty.

Protest with civil disobedience (altho the 2nd charge is a bit beyond that) is empty if it's always expected or demanded to come free, IMO. There is
a cost sometimes.

Yeap. She is facing the music, alright and pleading not guilty to the "criminal charges". A lesson for messing with the oligarchs...no one has ever
got away Scot-free breaking the law except if you are the powerful politicians and bankers yourselves. Only then, following the law becomes REALLY
subjective. Of course, reading your previous posts on other threads, one can only guess you are not worried about that as much as when the common
folks break much lesser law standing up to the bullies and get harsh punishment for it, Wrab, are you? Just checking.

I believe we're a nation of law or we aren't. The law applies equally, or it doesn't. Now, right now? It's not applying so well for that equal
concept as we look up the chain. That's true enough. Then again, Justice just announced a clemency application program for a broad group of
non-violent offenders. It's something of a mixed bag, but nowhere near balanced for the nonsense at the top levels.

In fact, I'm among the strongest voices around here for wanting to see Hillary brought to account for her role in a couple of the more spectacular
national failures under her tenure at the State Department.

However, if holding over to arraignment is a normal thing done, with normal people, every day...and she meets the criteria for doing that (if she
didn't, he lawyer will have a ball with that, first) then it would have been showing her special treatment by releasing her on her own recognizance
just because it was Hillary she threw it at.

Everyone knows the applicability of law is currently one-sided. "Justice", as some people say is applicable to "Just Us". As we have previously
gone over, sometimes, the law could be written for special interest groups and it can be too expensive and draining to challenge them in court. Nobody
has the level of resources that the oligarchs possess (backed by seemingly unlimited tax dollars). When there is no true justice, people would
understandably disregard the law. Never underestimate and never scorn at other people's judgment for what is right or wrong (whether legal or illegal
is totally another matter that you are apparently most concerned with). You may insist others follow the unjust law or challenge them, but sometimes,
we need to position ourselves in their shoes and judge their capacity. When push comes to shove, it is either civil disobedience or torching yourself
in front of a government building to prove a point.

Seriously, Wrab, we do need to display some compassion towards those who really are cornered and try helping rather than condemning them. You will not
understand their predicaments until you walk in their shoes. I don't care what law you use, when you disregard and insist on sacrificing humanity
over principles, you are not a human....at least not in my book.

Seriously, Wrab, we do need to display some compassion towards those who really are cornered and try helping rather than condemning them. You
will not understand their predicaments until you walk in their shoes.

Okay, you know absolutely nothing about me. You are making a habit of personalizing your replies. I'd ask again, as I have once before, keep to the
topic and not me, personally. I'll be more than happy to do the same and debate the topic, as I approach things on a case by case, thread by thread
basis for the opinions I form.

You may insist others follow the unjust law or challenge them, but sometimes, we need to position ourselves in their shoes and judge their
capacity. When push comes to shove, it is either civil disobedience or torching yourself in front of a government building to prove a point.

There is a mindset that favors a revolutionary (perhaps literally) approach to change. I'm among the very strongest against that mindset you will
ever meet. The talk of change of the system by force is suicide by government agent. It's not a fate I would seek out, but some in our nation are
leaning that way in these very troubled times.

Some also see the rich as the problem. (shakes head)... naww. Rich isn't the problem, as the worst things the rich do are done within the law. That
law is written creatively by a whole different class within our society. A political class. That class can be removed...and force isn't required.
Just a lack of apathy by more than a voting minority. The party hacks always show up...but not that many more do and annual stats show it.

A past rant on revolutionary mindsets
(Pardon the title if it's a bit harsh, and it's not intended to be personal. However, that's one of the best texts to understand where I'm coming
from...as you've taken a strong interest across threads in that)

I favor change by using the system itself, against the system directly. It's designed to be used that way, if we'd bother to even try.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.